Retrieve documented hidden costs, such as onboarding fees and overages, for any software product, each with a sourced quote and date.
The documented hidden/implementation/add-on costs of a product (uplifts, onboarding fees, overages), each with a sourced quote + date. The "what they don't tell you" answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds that results include sourced quotes and dates, which is useful, but it does not disclose operational details like update frequency, data limitations, or pagination. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose and examples, and closes with a clarifying tagline. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return concept (costs with sourced quote/date) but leaves the only required parameter undocumented and does not clarify the response shape or any constraints. It is minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'slug' with no description, and the tool description does not compensate. The phrase 'of a product' weakly implies slug identifies a product, but the expected format, source, or possible values are entirely left unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource as hidden/implementation/add-on costs, with concrete examples (uplifts, onboarding fees, overages) and a memorable tagline. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_price_history, which cover standard pricing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description establishes a clear context: use this tool when you need the costs that are not readily advertised. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is distinct enough to imply separation from general pricing and historical price tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.